CPA Briefings
The California Psychological Association

Clinical Theory, Research, and Practice: II
II. The Study of Evil and Depravity:
An Interview with Michael Welner, M.D.

by Megan Sullaway, Ph.D.

MS: Do you think psychology/psychiatry has a role in attempting to define and study "evil," or is the concept of "evil" best left to the theologians?

MW: I think psychiatry/psychology MUST be involved in establishing a framework - to play a major, though not exclusive role. The behavioral sciences define diagnoses and treatments, based on standardizing research, and it is this approach to behavioral and emotional difficulties that absolutely lends itself to standardizing the understanding of behavior in the legal context.
Scientific methodology is not part of the court's approach. However, court trends toward disciplining the quality of science in the court demonstrate how courts well appreciate the scientific approach to providing clarity.

I don't think the definition of depravity is exclusively the domain of the behavioral sciences. In fact, in my clinical practice, I embrace theological influences, because moral grounding and a clear standard for everyone is itself therapeutic. If psychiatrists and psychologists work in concert with internists, or with judges, why should theologists be off limits? And as far as the definition of depravity, no one is exactly fighting turf battles, here. Evil has existed since the beginning of time, why is the first systematic effort to define it coming in 2002?

Science is about precision, be it physical or biological. Theology is about the solution, rather than the definition. Theologists are more uncomfortable in defining evil, in part because that designates some individuals for punishment. This discomfort is understandable - and discomfort precludes one from involvement in the process. You wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who faints at the sight of blood.

Theology's greatest contribution to this discussion, in my judgment, is oriented around issues of redemption. Specifically, "what do we do about this individual, who has done something depraved?" Then, theology can work ably with clinical appraisals of who the person is, and what can be done therapeutically. I also respect the influence of sociology on the development of this scale, and that disciplines impact will be felt in validation studies.

Furthermore, because the Depravity Scale and its definition of evil is fact and evidence based, pathology and criminalistics will also have a pivotal influence in the development of these standards.

MS: What characteristics of personality and/or behavior cause you to describe a person or an act as "evil"?

MW: I think an evil act reflects intent, actions, and attitudes about what one has done.
Surely what we appreciate as antisocial, pathologically narcissistic, sadistic, psychopathic, or necrophilic personality qualities can drive a criminal objective, and may manifest themselves in the criminal acts, if carried to fruition. Those same qualities may be evidenced in one's response to his crime as well.

The point of developing a valid Depravity Scale, with 26 items drawing consideration for final inclusion, is that the range of human behavior is so vast, that we have to allow for all kinds of possibilities of intent, actions, and attitudes. I feel the definition needs to be all-inclusive to be accurate (and provide sensitivity), but exceptionally precise in order to be fair (specificity).

MS: Is evil the same as psychopathy? If not, where do the 2 concepts overlap, and where do they differ?

MW: Psychopathy is a description of "who" a person is. The effort to define evil focuses on "what" a person does.

Anyone is capable of doing evil things; and, of course, a psychopath is capable of committing crimes that do not necessarily reflect evil intent, actions, and attitudes, but rather simple impulsive rulebreaking. The Depravity Scale is diagnosis and prognosis independent.

The psychopathy construct has inspired some of the items relating to the Depravity Scale, particularly in Hare's PCL-R Factor 1 realms of parasitism, manipulativeness, and callousness. But actually, the items of the Depravity Scale reflect understandings of sadism and malignant narcissism equally, if not more.

A fair justice system views must view actions as they are.

MS: Tell me about the Depravity Scale. What led you to develop it?

MW: Actually, I'm fortunate enough to work, at high intensity, on some of the most crucial and controversial cases in the United States, as both a prosecution and defense witness. So I am able to see how the law plays itself out at the end user level. "Depraved" is used in criminal cases already, at sentencing; but I have seen how points are made based on manipulated emotion, rather than based on the facts and evidence available on the case. Is that fair, in light of how severe the sentences can be?

Can we not do better than no definition at all?

Furthermore, as Editor-in-Chief of The Forensic Echo, I had been reviewing higher court decisions every month. I have been struck by how often the words "heinous, atrocious, and cruel" are being challenged at the level of appellate courts.

When my curiosity led me through the psychiatric and psychological literature to see what we have done to divine "evil" actions, I was struck by the avoidance of the topic. The book every source seemed to guide me to, "Whatever Became of Sin," written many years ago by Karl Menninger, was a disappointing embarrassment of gobbledygook and nothing more than a leading psychiatrist's attempt to sound like a theologist. Perhaps at the time he thought he was being high-minded, but I just thought the book was regressive and punted clinical responsibility. Such was also the premise of books like Simon's "Bad Men Do What Good Men Dream." I understand the point that we are all capable of evil, but...duuuuh. I think as a serious discipline we have to contribute more than that, or we are no more sophisticated than bartenders or cabdrivers. When they start pulling eviscerated medical students out of Simon's basement, I'll appreciate his point.

On the other hand, categorical assertions of the "personification of evil" do an injustice to our disciplines' sophistication as to the "before, during and after" of choices that people make. So the middle ground that I arrived at was to embark on an effort where I was not going to define evil for everyone else, but to facilitate a national consensus that could guide court decision making, and that could be thoughtfully, deliberately constructed.

One of the very reasons the Depravity Scale effort is so important is that there is ample attention in courts devoted to explaining why people do bad things, and who they are as people. But we have, along the way, diverted from the obvious, which is exactly what the person did in the first place. The existence of a Scale redirects attention of the court to facts, rather than interpretations, which are too contaminated by the conjecture encouraged by the adversarial process. I am a bottom line guy, and I think a lot of Americans are.

MS: How far along are you in its development? What does your sample look like so far?

MW: Frankly, I'm really thrilled with how things have transpired.

The first efforts in 1998 were stalled by, frankly, my own focus on a number of other cases and professional projects. In 2001, I presented the preliminary 15 research items at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting, to gauge the mood of colleagues. The dialogue encouraged me to kick the research into overdrive notwithstanding my casework and other responsibilities.
The current "Phase B," identifying which items will be included in the updated version, has yielded over 2500 valid responses. It is located at www.depravityscale.org, and the data collection is ongoing. We are attempting to establish which items, carefully selected from the earlier research phase, achieve a consensus as to their representation of depravity. Sixteen of the items under consideration have drawn greater than 90% agreement that they are either especially, or some what representative of depravity. We have achieved consensus, even when controlling for scores of variables. What a remarkable and encouraging development!

Furthermore, our results, when groups were compared from samples drawn at one time with another, showed virtually identical responses across all possible responses, 78 in all. That supports the reliability of the current study. In addition, we have seen no statistical significance in the results yielded from the seven states where we have received our heaviest participation in the Scale research.

Again, quite encouraging reliability data. And with the support of organizations to have their members participate in these research surveys, we can learn that much more. Now, lets get enough respondents from all fifty states, if we can...

Given that there are several other items where we are continuing to debate inclusion, and given that we want to attract large enough sample sizes from the many demographics involved, we strongly encourage you and your readers to participate in the current survey. The more participants we draw valid input from, the more polished and fair an instrument, and the more we can feel that the definitions we arrive at are truly representative of the rich mosaic that the human race is.

Our next phase will be in developing relative weight to the items selected, and to establish standards for the evidence to be used in grading whether the items on the Depravity Scale are present or not. We need to keep this as fact and evidence based as possible.

MS: Have you been able to look at any demographic differences yet in responses to the Scale? For example, do men and women view depravity differently?

MW: We have drawn out, already, a voluminous understanding of how people define evil, depending on differences in gender, age, ethnic group, state, country and area of residence; attitudes about capital punishment, history of victimization by violence; pre and post 9/11; spiritual and traditional observance; educational level; exposure to criminal law; profession, for example.

The most important variables to date, believe it or not, are gender and spirituality. We see statistically significant differences on ALL 26 items with gender. And, on 24 of 26 items, depending on peoples' perception of their spirituality.

MS: Sometimes I think mental health professionals can be a little naïve about perpetrators of violent actions, and assume that most perpetrators can be rehabilitated. Has your work sometimes met with resistance from other mental health professionals? How do judges, district attorneys and cops view your work?

MW: Well, I think mental health professionals make themselves naive, because we are in a therapeutic profession. We are trained to be unfailingly optimistic. Again, the Depravity Scale effort does not address rehabilitative potential. I specifically want to isolate the definition of evil from these other, potentially contaminating influences like "who", and "why," or the effort will be more pock-marked than our tax code.

Resistance comes from those who see the Depravity Scale as contradicting a therapeutic focus for the behavioral sciences. That only reflects their ignorance for what the Scale is about, and the specific and narrow domain it is illuminating. Ignorance confronts any innovation -- but knee-jerk criticisms are helpful in disciplining the Depravity Scale effort to confront the potential pitfalls that the avoidant call attention to. Thank God we live in a free society -- we are not Wahabbis yet -- where we can actually have discourse.

The legal system is already using terms such as heinous, atrocious, depraved, and cruel, and has been wrestling with the precision of these terms since Common Law. A standardized, valid, reliable measure serves justice. And so, attorneys and judges have been supportive and helpful, especially when they become more acquainted with what we are trying to do.

If there is a standard that tells cops and lawyers what evidence they need to look for in order to have case considered for whether or not they are depraved, they benefit -- and appreciate the direction.

At the American Psychiatric Association convention three weeks ago, I found the response of a large audience to be consistently supportive and intrigued. Once colleagues realize that this is a deliberate, cautious and non-denominational effort -- that it benefits defense attorneys as much as defense -- they are more open. Once they realize that the alternative is to leave these terms undefined, or to be defined by others who know less about behavior than we (hope we) do, they embrace the responsibility. When people learn of the research design and data to date, when they learn that they as individuals have as much input on the final entries in the Scale as I do, they are more enthusiastic and participate.

continue to next page>>>